Security System User Input Baselines for Proactive Threat Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing security systems fail to proactively detect anomalies in user input that prevent the identification of critical security events, leading to potential security compromises.

Innovation Solution

A security system with a controller that monitors user input over time to establish a baseline operation, identifies anomalies relative to this baseline, and sends a proactive threat detection alert when the system is unable to recognize predefined security events.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the security system operates with normal user input patterns, then the system functions correctly and detects security events, but anomalies in user input that disable sensor functionality go undetected

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesecurity event detection reliabilityVSAvoidsystem monitoring complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary action by establishing a baseline of normal user input patterns before anomalies occur. The controller continuously monitors user input and compares it against the established baseline to proactively detect anomalies that may disable sensor functionality, allowing preventive alerting before security events are compromised.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback by continuously monitoring user input patterns and comparing them against the baseline. When deviations are detected, the system provides feedback through proactive threat detection alerts that notify operators of potential anomalies, creating a closed-loop monitoring system that adapts to normal operational variations while detecting abnormal patterns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If the system monitors user input continuously to detect anomalies, then proactive threat detection is enabled, but system resources are consumed continuously

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveanomaly detection capabilityVSAvoidcontroller processing energy
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial action by monitoring only the most critical user input parameters related to sensor control and system configuration, rather than analyzing all possible user interactions. This selective monitoring approach enables proactive anomaly detection while minimizing the processing energy required from the controller.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs self-service by automatically establishing and maintaining its own baseline of normal user input patterns without requiring external intervention. The controller continuously refines its understanding of normal operation through automated learning, reducing the need for manual configuration and lowering ongoing processing requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If the security system uses baseline configuration to detect anomalies, then proactive alerting is achieved, but the system cannot adapt to legitimate changes in operation

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveproactive threat detectionVSAvoidoperation flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements dynamics by making its baseline configuration adaptive rather than static. The controller continuously updates its understanding of normal user input patterns based on observed behavior, allowing the baseline to evolve with legitimate changes in operation. This dynamic baseline maintains the ability to detect true anomalies while adapting to acceptable operational variations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies parameter changes by modifying the baseline configuration parameters based on observed user input patterns. When legitimate operational changes are detected, the system updates the baseline parameters to reflect the new normal behavior, ensuring the anomaly detection remains accurate while accommodating legitimate operational flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP4651115A1System and methods for proactive threat detection in a security system
Publication Date: 2025.11.19 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC
  • EP4651115A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4651115A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4651115A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Proactive threat detection in a security system includes monitoring user input received for operating the security system over time and establishing a baseline user input for operating the security system that produces a baseline operation of the security system that can monitor for and identify each of a plurality of baseline security events. An anomaly in the user input relative to the baseline user input is detected and a determination is made as to whether the anomaly means the security system is not able to identify one or more of the baseline security events. When the anomaly in the user input causes the security system to not be able to identify one or more of the baseline security events, a proactive threat detection alert is provided that prompts an operator to take action to resolve the anomaly.